St. Paul daily globe., 1887-10-22
A Petition For Writ of Error Ar
gued Before the Supreme
Court,
And Taken Under Amusement by the
Court Till Next
Monday.
Two Of the Jurors Said to Be Dis
qualified Through Preju-
dice.

with people, waiting anXiously to hear
the petition for writ of error in the
case of the Chicago anarchists, which it
was known would be made to the full
court in compliance with Justice Har-
lan's order. AS soon as the candidates
for admission to the bar had been dis
posed of, Gen. Pryor, of counsel of the
condemned anarchists, rose and ad
dressed the court in support of the pc
tition for writ of error. After reciting
briefly the history of the case, and stat
ing that seven, of the prisoners
were now under sentence of death,
Mr.. Pryor said he would call the atten-
tion of the court to only two points
which he relied upon to show that the
case at the bar presented federal ques-
tons and that such questions empow-
cred this court to take jurisdiction of it
and to grant the writ of error prayed for.
The first of these points related, he said,
to the jury by which the prisoners were
tried. The legislature of the state of
Illinois passed in March, 1874, that is,
after the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution, law to
regulate and govern the empanelment
of juries in the state courts. By virtue
of that law a jury for the trial of
criminal case might be made up in part
d6 lcdSG VI yuIOIS VIII ldu lOIIlou Ill
opinion with regard to the guilt OF in
nocence of the persons accused-jurors
who were partial, and even prejudiced
men. The law made it possible to put
into the jury box men who had formed an
opinion as to the prisoners guilt which
could not be removed except by strong
evidence. This, he believed, had been
done in the case under consideration,
and the petitioners asserted that this
statute and the effect given to it in the
courts below had deprived them of that
right and was about to deprive them of
their lives with the ''due process Of
law guaranteed by the Federal consti-
tuition" What is that statute, MIR.
Pryor?' inquired the chief justice. Mr..
Pryor sent to the chief justice and then
Illinois legislature approved March 12,
1874, which provides ''that it shall not
be cause of challenge that juror has
read in the newspapers an account of
the commission of a crime with which
the prisoner is charged if such juror
shall state on oath that he believes
he can render an impartial ver-
dict according to the law and the evi-
dence;;" and which also provides that in
the trial of any criminal cause, the fact
that person called as juror has
formed an opinion or impression based
upon rumOr or upon newspaper state
ments about the truth of which he has
expressed no OpiniOn) shall not diSqual-
ify him to serve as juror in such case,
if he shall, upon oath, state that he be-
lieves that he can fairly and impartially
render verdict therein in accordance
with the law and the evidence, and the
court shall be satisfied of the truth of
such statement.
'It appears of record" said Mr.. Pryor,
"that this statement was called in question
in the trial court as repugnant to the pro-
visions both of the federal constitution and
of the constitution of the state of Illinois.
but the court affirmed its constitutionality
upon the authority of decisions of the Illinois
supreme court, and the latter afterWard SuS
tanned the Judgment
Mr.. Pryor then read extracts from the
record to show that among the taleSmen
in the trial court there were men who
admitted that they had read newspapers
and formed an opinion with regard to
the case, and were therefore partial.
Justice Miller-Was any one of the jnrors
shown to have read newspaper accounts,
forme an opinion. etc., as you describe?
Mr.. Prior replied that any man was
accepted as juror, notwithstanding
the fact that he had formed an opinion,
if he thought he could render an impair
Justice Miller-Was any such juror ac-
cepted; was there any such man in the jury?
Mr.. Pryor-Two of them, your honor, and
one of them was accepted after the chal-
lenges for the defense had been exhausted.
Counsel then read again extracts from
the record to show the extent of the
prepOsseSSiOnS and prejudIceS of par
ticular juror, and the view taken by
the court as to his admissibility. He
was interrupted second time by JUS
tice Miller, who asked:
Was this man actually on the jury-this
man referred to in the colloquy which you
have just read?
Mr.. Pryor-No, your honor, but
Justice Miller-Then this particular man
was not on the trial jury?
Mr.. Pryor-No, your honor, he was not. but
cases of men who were.
Justice Miller said he asked for infor-
nation because in case which recently
came before him in Missouri similar
objections were urged to a particular
juror, and it cost him three days study
of the record to find out that the man
whose case was thus emphasized in
the argument had not actually
been member of the jury at
all. Mr.. Pryor said it abundantly ap-
peared in the record that at least two of
were persons having prepOSSeSSions and
prejudiceS of the character described.
Thus by the action of the lower court,
he said, the Illinois statute had been
made to deprive the accused of the right
of trial by an impartial jury, had
abridged their privileges as citizens of
the United States. and was about to de-
prive them of life, ETC., without due
process of law. The chief justice re-
marked that the only question for this
court was whether the statute was con-
Stitutional. If the court erred in its ad-
ministration of the statute that was a
question for the state courts. Mr.. Pryor
replied that the action of the state court
was the action of the state. If the stat
ute was administered unfairly it was
state action, and that brought it within
the jurisdiction of this court. 1t
must be so, said Mr.. Pryor, be-
cause if a state pass a seemingly
fair statute and then ignores it or ad-
ministers it unfairly, then the protec-
ton which the fourteenth amendment
is intended to give is denied. To try
man for his life by partial jury is not
due process of law and never was due
process of law. Mr.. Pryor'S second
been compelled in the trial court to be
witnesses against themselves. Some of
them were on the stand, and in spite of
the protests of their counsel they were
compelled to submit to an unreStrained
crOSS-eXamination and to criminate
themselves. Compelling man to testify
against himself is not due process of
law. Furthermore, after their arrest
the police, without any process of law,
broke open their private desks and ex-
tracted from them letters and other
eliminating evidence and these letters,
gotten without due process of law, We're
used against them. When the objection
was raised it was Oyerruled and an ex-
ceptiOn was taken.
The Chief Justice-Can you point us to the
precise exception that was taken?
Mr.. Pryor then read extracts from the